奧古斯丁知道自己是在“努力言說人斷不能言說之物（to speak of subjects which cannot altogether be spoken as they are thought）。無論如何，當我們想到上帝三位一體時，便認識到，我們的思想不足以達到其對象，不能如其所是的領會他。”【159】
“上帝是實體，也許更好的詞是存在（是者），即希臘語的ousia。…故‘是者’出自‘是’…我們叫做是者或實體的別的東西都允許有限定，或顯或微地有所改變。但上帝斷不能限定，故而上帝所是的實體或是者獨獨不變，故而最高最真的是屬於它，從它才出了‘是者’之名（He is, however, without doubt, a substance, or, if it be better so to call it, an essence, which the Greeks call οὐσία，…so from being comes that which we call essence… other things that are called essences or substances admit of accidents, whereby a change, whether great or small, is produced in them. But there can be no accident of this kind in respect to God; and therefore He who is God is the only unchangeable substance or essence, to whom certainly being itself, whence comes the name of essence, most especially and most truly belongs）。”【161】
奧古斯丁明確說三位一體並非恰當之稱而是無奈之舉：“我們說三個位格，不是為了說得確切，而是為了不化作沉默（three “persons,” not that it might be [completely] spoken, but that it might not be left [wholly] unspoken.”【168】
我們關於上帝的思想，真於我們關於上帝的言談，而上帝本身之所是，又遠真於我們關於他的思想（For God is more truly thought than He is altered, and exists more truly than He is thought）。”【203】
類和種的邏輯類型用於說三位一體是成問題的，而“為了討論和論證的需要，說三位乃是合法的；不是因為《聖經》這麼說過，而是因為《聖經》沒有非難這個說法。但我們若說三個上帝，那聖經就會非難我們了（it was lawful through the mere necessity of speaking and reasoning to say three persons, not because Scripture says it, but because Scripture does not contradict it: whereas, if we were to say three Gods, Scripture would contradict it）。”【205】
“我們只好承認，採用這些術語是受形式所迫，是為了以最充分的可能論證來反對異端派的詭計和謬誤（we confess that these terms sprang from the necessity of speaking, when copious reasoning was required against the devices or errors of the heretics）。”【206】
“我的理解是苦勞多於功勞（I felt that I have made an attempt more than I have achieved success）。”【443】
奧古斯丁對教義與神真理本身的清醒與敬畏，豈是你們這些庸俗化、偶像化TULIP的教義崇拜者所能理解的。
願神憐憫你們幾個庸俗化、偶像化TULIP的教義崇拜者
